Clinician-administered interviews should not be considered the ‘gold standard’ method of assessing psychological distress

Philip Hyland, Mark Shevlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Clinician-administered interviews are widely considered the ‘gold standard’ method of assessing psychological distress. We challenge this assumption by noting that there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that psychological distress scores derived from clinician-administered interviews more accurately reflect true psychological distress scores than those derived from self-report questionnaires. Furthermore, we argue that the clinician-administered interview method is not well-suited to measuring subjective experiences of psychological distress and is likely to generate higher levels of measurement error compared to self-reports due to there being two sources of measurement error: the interviewee and the interviewer. Contrary to popular opinion, we argue that the self-report method is superior to the clinician-administered interview method for assessing subjective psychological distress.
Original languageEnglish
Article number101072
JournalNew Ideas in Psychology
Volume73
Early online date14 Dec 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 30 Apr 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd

Keywords

  • Measurement
  • Self-report
  • Interviews
  • Psychological distress
  • Mental health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinician-administered interviews should not be considered the ‘gold standard’ method of assessing psychological distress'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this